That being said, I would like to have a debate about God existing and whether or not religion is correct.

My point is there is NO proof of God. All religions are based on faith, which is belief that's not based on proof. I am sure somebody is going to bring up "Well the bible said [blank] is true..." This would be an example of circular reasoning, you cannot prove something by what you are trying to prove says.

Ex.
A: Why do you believe in god?
B: I believe in God because the bible said god exists.
A: Why do you believe what the bible says?
B: Because God wrote it.

Some points that people supporting religion will make:
Q: How did the universe form without God?
A: There are many theory's about the universe forming, and we will probably never know. A counter question would be "Who made God?"

Q: Why do you care what I believe in? It isn't hurting you.
A: Personally I don't mind what you believe in, as long as it does no harm to yourself or others. But that being said, religion has killed more people over the years then all the world wars, and the holocaust combined. People have been fighting over which religion is right since man has been on earth. There are still holy wars going on in the middle east.

S: You need to believe in God to go to heaven.
R: Being atheist I don't believe in a heaven or a hell, this statement doesn't apply to me.

S: Religion helps me be a good person and live a good life.
R: You can still be a good person without religion. If anything religion ruins your life, an example would be Muslim women, Scientology, etc.

On a side note I would also recommend watching Zeitgeist and Zeitgeist: Addendum.(Google it, I can't post links.) They both deal with religion and how corrupt our world is today.

My scientific belief (against Christianity, if I were to not hold my faith, of course) is that the universe routinely has a big bang every so infinite amount of years. After the explosion, the universe slowly starts pulling to one point through gravity. By the time the majority of the universe's mass is clumped together, the center would hold way too much energy from heat. The gravitational pull would be so large that nothing would be able to leave it until the core explodes.
If I were to guess, under that amount of energy, I'm sure new forms of matter would appear. Instead of staying in a form of matter, energy would reach its purest form in this giant ball of mass/energy. Big bang would occur.

When I said time is not relevant to the universe, it's kind of true. Time is a man-made theory. Without our inventions of time, the universe would still continue to move accordingly. Thus the matter would have always existed an infinite amount of years ago and an infinite amount of years later.

I Think God exists. But its not just like, you can see it or touch it..all you can do is feel the god. God is not someone who created and world and is the king of the world. God is an support of living an happy life on earth. All must have some sort of belief in god, which makes a person more confident and positive in nature. We feel god is with us in every matter, and after all, it goes all well.

You can't see air, but it sustains life and you feel it when the wind blows. It took several millennium for science to analyze its chemical composition, but we still cannot see it unless we alter it.

We cannot see anything beyond the visible light spectrum. It took a prism for someone to discover there were other forms. Then we developed sensors that could see Gamma rays · X-rays · Ultraviolet · Infrared · Terahertz radiation · Microwave · Radio and we've discovered allot more of the universe out there to see that we never knew was there before.

Maybe you need to find the right sensor or a new perspective and take another look. You just might find that what you've been looking for has been there all along.

Albert Einstein - "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."

Martin Luther King Jr. - “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than a sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”

Hi,
The question is asked because some people have experiences that cause them to think that God exists, and other people have not had these experiences. The latter group may ask these questions. I don't agree with your last sentence. Some things can exist without being known to some, or even most, people, for quite a while. One example is sub-atomic particles, or black holes. There are probably countless such veiled structures that have yet to be unearthed by equation or observation.

Believing in God is an irrational choice, and religious people who accept and are comfortable with the fact that religion can be explained by terrestrial means is people who are truly religious and at peace with themselves .

garywoot wrote:
[/u]I am an atheist and I don't believe in God or religion.

That being said, I would like to have a debate about God existing and whether or not religion is correct.

My point is there is NO proof of God. All religions are based on faith, which is belief that's not based on proof. I am sure somebody is going to bring up "Well the bible said [blank] is true..." This would be an example of circular reasoning, you cannot prove something by what you are trying to prove says.

Faith and science are two separate domains of inquiry. One is called spiritual and another is called physical. Methods of validation of claims in these domains are different. Theologians rely on authority of holy books while scientists rely on reproducible results of experiments and observations.

I think that attempts to validate/refute spiritual claims by scientific methodology will lead nowhere. I believe that many scientists, including myself, accepted such position. Likewise, I think that attempts to validate/refute scientific claims by methodology based on holy books will lead nowhere. I heard that many theologian accepted that position.

Science and religion can, and should, coexist peacefully. Who benefits from attempts to prove or disprove each other's claims? These fields evolve. Modern scientist no longer say that our planet is the center of the universe, or that interplanetary space is filled with a substance called ether. Likewise, modern theologians no longer believe that our planet was created 6000 years ago.

By the way, I used to be an aggressive atheist, as described in my free ON-LINE autobiography. The link is below the signature.

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)

Last edited by kowalskil on Tue Jan 11, 2011 1:56 am, edited 1 time in total.

Ludwik Kowalski, author of a free ON-LINE book entitled “Diary of a Former Communist: Thoughts, Feelings, Reality.”

a testimony based on a diary kept between 1946 and 2004 (in the USSR, Poland, France and the USA).

The more people know about proletarian dictatorship the less likely will they experience is. Please share the link with those who might be interested, especially with young people, and with potential reviewers. Thank you.

garywoot wrote:
[/u]I am an atheist and I don't believe in God or religion.

That being said, I would like to have a debate about God existing and whether or not religion is correct.

My point is there is NO proof of God. All religions are based on faith, which is belief that's not based on proof. I am sure somebody is going to bring up "Well the bible said [blank] is true..." This would be an example of circular reasoning, you cannot prove something by what you are trying to prove says.

Faith and science are two separate domains of inquiry. One is called spiritual and another is called physical. Methods of validation of claims in these domains are different. Theologians rely on authority of holy books while scientists rely on reproducible results of experiments and observations.

I think that attempts to validate/refute spiritual claims by scientific methodology will lead nowhere. I believe that many scientists, including myself, accepted such position. Likewise, I think that attempts to validate/refute scientific claims by methodology based on holy books will lead nowhere. I heard that many theologian accepted that position.

Science and religion can, and should, coexist peacefully. Who benefits from attempts to prove or disprove each other's claims? These fields evolve. Modern scientist no longer say that our planet is the center of the universe, or that interplanetary space is filled with a substance called ether. Likewise, modern theologians no longer believe that our planet was created 6000 years ago.

By the way, I used to be an aggressive atheist, as described in my free ON-LINE autobiography. The link is below the signature.

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)

I don't debate religion anymore. People either have faith or they don't. And I gave up caring who did and who did not a few years ago.

I just don't understand why so many people that don't believe get so mad at me because I do. I don't push my belief on anyone. But it seems to be very important to some that they stop me from believing.

garywoot wrote:
[/u]I am an atheist and I don't believe in God or religion.

That being said, I would like to have a debate about God existing and whether or not religion is correct.

My point is there is NO proof of God. All religions are based on faith, which is belief that's not based on proof. I am sure somebody is going to bring up "Well the bible said [blank] is true..." This would be an example of circular reasoning, you cannot prove something by what you are trying to prove says.

Faith and science are two separate domains of inquiry. One is called spiritual and another is called physical. Methods of validation of claims in these domains are different. Theologians rely on authority of holy books while scientists rely on reproducible results of experiments and observations.

I think that attempts to validate/refute spiritual claims by scientific methodology will lead nowhere. I believe that many scientists, including myself, accepted such position. Likewise, I think that attempts to validate/refute scientific claims by methodology based on holy books will lead nowhere. I heard that many theologian accepted that position.

Science and religion can, and should, coexist peacefully. Who benefits from attempts to prove or disprove each other's claims? These fields evolve. Modern scientist no longer say that our planet is the center of the universe, or that interplanetary space is filled with a substance called ether. Likewise, modern theologians no longer believe that our planet was created 6000 years ago.

By the way, I used to be an aggressive atheist, as described in my free ON-LINE autobiography. The link is below the signature.

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)

I don't debate religion anymore. People either have faith or they don't. And I gave up caring who did and who did not a few years ago.

I just don't understand why so many people that don't believe get so mad at me because I do. I don't push my belief on anyone. But it seems to be very important to some that they stop me from believing.

People who do not believe should not be mad at those who do, and vice versa. We should be educated to respect each other. I know that this ideal is difficult to reach. But what is gained when people try to convert each others?

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)

Ludwik Kowalski, author of a free ON-LINE book entitled “Diary of a Former Communist: Thoughts, Feelings, Reality.”

a testimony based on a diary kept between 1946 and 2004 (in the USSR, Poland, France and the USA).

The more people know about proletarian dictatorship the less likely will they experience is. Please share the link with those who might be interested, especially with young people, and with potential reviewers. Thank you.